NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been hearing tons of debate about peak oil. In school, we have been talking in biology class about biodiesel, and algae. The fact is, we can completely (and realistically) replace our fuel for vehicles. While traditional crops yeild 150-200 gallons of biodiesel per year, algae crops have been proven to yeild 5,00-20,000 gallons of fuel per year.


Micro algaes present the best option for producing biodiesel in quantities sufficient to completely replace petroleum. While traditional crops have yields of around 50-150 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year, algaes can yield 5,000-20,000 gallons per acre per year. Algaes grow best off of waste streams . agricultural, animal, or human. Some other studies have looked into designing raceway algae ponds to be fed by agricultural or animal waste. We are now pursuing funding to investigate redesigning wastewater treatment plants to use raceway algae ponds as the primary treatment phase . with the dual goal of treating the waste and growing algae for biodiesel extraction. We also plan to investigate the possibility of using the algae mush (what is left after extracting the oil) as a fertilizer.

Furthermore, another website has mathematically and economically proven that biodiesel can be produced realistacally with certain algaes, which contain up to 50% oil content.


The Office of Fuels Development, a division of the Department of Energy, funded a program from 1978 through 1996 under the National Renewable Energy Laboratory known as the "Aquatic Species Program". The focus of this program was to investigate high-oil algaes that could be grown specifically for the purpose of wide scale biodiesel production. The research began as a project looking into using quick-growing algae to sequester carbon in CO2 emissions from coal power plants. Noticing that some algae have very high oil content, the project shifted its focus to growing algae for another purpose - producing biodiesel. Some species of algae are ideally suited to biodiesel production due to their high oil content (some well over 50% oil), and extremely fast growth rates. From the results of the Aquatic Species Program2, algae farms would let us supply enough biodiesel to completely replace petroleum as a transportation fuel in the US (as well as its other main use - home heating oil) - but we first have to solve a few of the problems they encountered along the way.


This method does not require us to use our valuable farm land for the production of fuel, as does the idea of corn, but can use any area, and any water, including sea water and desert


One of the important concerns about wide-scale development of biodiesel is if it would displace croplands currently used for food crops. In the US, roughly 450 million acres of land is used for growing crops, with the majority of that actually being used for producing animal feed for the meat industry. Another 580 million acres is used for grassland pasture and range, according to the USDA's Economic Research Service. This accounts for nearly half of the 2.3 billion acres within the US (only 3% of which, or 66 million acres, is categorized as urban land).


NREL's research showed that one quad (ten billion gallons) of biodiesel could be produced from 200,000 hectares of desert land (200,000 hectares is equivalent to 780 square miles). In the previous section, we found that to replace all transportation fuels in the US, we would need 140.8 billion gallons of biodiesel, or roughly 14 quads. To produce that amount would require a land mass of almost 11,000 square miles. To put that in perspective, consider that the Sonora desert in the southwestern US comprises 120,000 square miles. As can be seen in Figure 1 below, the Sonora desert is located along the Pacific ocean, making it an ideal location for algae farms. The arid climate of the desert is very supportive of algae growth, and the nearby ocean could supply saltwater for the algae ponds. Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 11,000 square miles, or roughly nine percent of the area of the Sonora desert.



Economically, the solution is completely cash-capable. Here is a quote from a web page that not only shows that we could make a profit making bio-diesel, but also shows that we could pay for the algae farms themselves -- a completely self-sustaining business


If the algae ponds fail to yield enough micro algae oil to produce 14,080 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year, then ten million acres will not be enough to yield the target goal of 140.8 billion gallons per year.

Hey, we have plenty of fresh seawater, lots of sunshine and unlimited enthusiasm, so we will assume the algae ponds average 15,000 gallons per acre per year - if not, we will hire the best plant geneticists money can buy, and breed those little algae until they reach super algae status!

Based on Michael Briggs’ estimates, we were able to show that a 250 acre algae farm would have $1,250,000 annual operating expenses.

15,000 gallons per acre times 250 acres = 3,750,000 gallons per algae farm per year.
$1,250,000 divided by 3,750,000 gallons = 33.3333 cents per gallon operating costs.

10,000 gallons per acre times 250 acres = 2,500,000 gallons per algae farm per year.
$1,250,000 divided by 2,500,000 gallons = 50 cents per gallon operating costs.

5,000 gallons per acre times 250 acres = 1,250,000 gallons per algae farm per year.
$1,250,000 divided by 1,250,000 gallons = 100 cents ($1) per gallon operating costs.

Did Michael Briggs’ estimates of operating costs include the cost of the initial capital investment? How much will it cost to pay off the $32,500 per acre loan for the initial construction costs (the $80,000 per hectare)?

That is: $32,500 times 250 acres = $8,125,000 construction costs for a 250 acre algae farm.

Let us assume a Zero Interest Loan over 20 years with a single payment of 1/20th of the principle due each year.

$8,125,000 divided by 20 years = $406,250 cost of debt per year per 250 acre algae farm.

$406,250 divided by 3,750,000 gallons = 10.8333 cents per gallon cost of debt (at 15,000 gallons per acre).

$406,250 divided by 2,500,000 gallons = 16.25 cents per gallon cost of debt (at 10,000 gallons per acre).

$406,250 divided by 1,250,000 gallons = 32.5 cents per gallon cost of debt (at 5,000 gallons per acre).

Worst case scenario at 5,000 gallons per acre = $1.33 per gallon total expense (operation costs + debt payments)

The worst case scenario total expense of $1.33 is for FEEDSTOCK only, and does not pay for the processing at the biorefinery to produce the final consumable gallon of biodiesel.

If the annual yield is only 5,000 gallons per acre, then the worse case scenario for feedstock is $1.325 times 42 = $55.65 per barrel of oil equivalent.

If the annual yield is 10,000 gallons per acre, then we would see a more rosy scenario for feedstock at .6625 cents times 42 = $27.83 per barrel of oil equivalent.

If the annual yield is 15,000 gallons per acre, then the cost of producing algae biodiesel feedstock would be .442 cents times 42 = $18.56 per barrel of oil equivalent. Very competitive with petroleum at low prices.

Don’t’ forget we have not added a profit yet.

If the farm earned 10 cents per gallon profit, then:

15,000 gallons times 250 acres times 10 cents = $375,000 per year net earnings.

10,000 gallons times 250 acres times 10 cents = $250,000 per year net earnings.

5,000 gallons times 250 acres times 10 cents = $125,000 per year net earnings.

The idea of a 250 acre farm has a very important purpose, indicated by the potential net earnings:



So let's cut out the peak-oil stuff, huh? I am tired of it

I have been hearing tons of debate about peak oil. In school, we have been talking in biology class about biodiesel, and algae. The fact is, we can completely (and realistically) replace our fuel for vehicles. While traditional crops yeild 150-200 gallons of biodiesel per year, algae crops have been proven to yeild 5,00-20,000 gallons of fuel per year.



Not only does algae produce more, but wouldn't one think that if there was a massive crop failure, and our fuel relied on ethanol or biodiesel, then wouldn't we run out of fuel. Plus i have hear many good things about algae. But it sounds so absurd to common people, that no one really wants to touch it just yet.

Do algae eat CO2? If so, who cares about global warming anymore?:p

Plus, you can grow it three dimensionally (on top of one another), and it doesn't eat up our prime real estate, AND it does not take a huge amount of steps to harvest. And it's growth rate is phenomenal compared to other organic crops.

The fact of the matter is, all of the oil we are burning now comes from primordial algae, which was the first living thing on the planet.

Do algae eat CO2? If so, who cares about global warming anymore?:p

algae is a HUGE co2 sink.

Plus, we wont be releasing any more co2 from the ground into the atmosphere anymore. It's brilliant.

But one has to ask, if algae are so great, and it's supposedly a profitable business. Why isn't anyone doing this?
Somehow, I don't think it's quite as simple and shiny bright a some make it sound.

algae is a HUGE co2 sink.

Plus, we wont be releasing any more co2 from the ground into the atmosphere anymore. It's brilliant.
Let's grow algae:D

This thread makes me feel all fuzzy inside :)

I <3 Algae

But one has to ask, if algae are so great, and it's supposedly a profitable business. Why isn't anyone doing this?
Somehow, I don't think it's quite as simple and shiny bright a some make it sound.

It isn't as profitable as oil, and the only reason you would ever do it would be as a replacement for oil. So nobody would have done it yet. But if we are backed into a corner, and it shows up as a way out, it may get to be very popular very soon.

It isn't as profitable as oil, and the only reason you would ever do it would be as a replacement for oil. So nobody would have done it yet. But if we are backed into a corner, and it shows up as a way out, it may get to be very popular very soon.If it's profitable at all, someone should do it. Because no one else can get into oil these days, so for any newcomers it doesn't matter whether that might be more profitable.
Windpower often isn't even profitable without subsidies, and yet wind turbines spring up everywhere.

This sounds too good to be true.

This sounds too good to be true.

Google it. Tons of documentation other than the sites I posted.

More info from Wikipedia


Meanwhile, independent results have shown that GreenFuel Technologies[3], a Cambridge, MA company founded by Isaac Berzin, has been successful in producing biodiesel growing algae on flue gas emissions from power plant smokestacks. Using a patented algae bioreactor, GreenFuel utilizes microalgae and a process of photomodulation to reduce emissions: 40 percent less carbon dioxide and 86 percent less nitrous oxide. This oil-rich algae can then be extracted from the system and processed into biodiesel, and the dried remainder further reprocessed to create ethanol. The company is testing their method at the MIT cogeneration facility and at an undisclosed 1000-megawatt power facility in the southwestern U.S. [4]

Plus it's great for the skin...

And more info on the refining process


Biodiesel 101

If you take vegetable oil from canola, soybeans, sunflowers, poppies, algae, animal tallow or whatever else you can dream up, mix it with alcohol add a catalyst (lye, for instance), you create biodiesel and glycerin ( a useful product for soap making and other industries).

And finally (maybe) making your own biodiesel - a link

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

im scared. not even the "im going to argue no matter what" guys can seem to argue this.

im scared. not even the "im going to argue no matter what" guys can seem to argue this.

Nah, it's easy.

They fail to tell you why eutrophication is a bad idea for fish stocks.

I guess we'd end up with more baleen wales though.

Yes I have read about this before I have heard they would like to put Algae farms in the Deserts of the South West U.S and build a pipe line from the Pacific Ocean to the Desert to pump in sea water (becuase algae can grow in any water and fresh water is precious in the southwest)and use the sewage from Los Angelos and other cities to feed the Algae.

Nah, it's easy.

They fail to tell you why eutrophication is a bad idea for fish stocks.

I guess we'd end up with more baleen wales though.

screw fish.

execpt shrimp. i love shrimp. (which i realize isnt a fish, but i just figured i should mention to save the shrimp.)

Nah, it's easy.

They fail to tell you why eutrophication is a bad idea for fish stocks.

I guess we'd end up with more baleen wales though.


Aye, but the very things that are bringing about advanced eutrophication in many lakes (eutrophication = advanced/harmful amounts of algae) are eaten up when you grow masses amounts of algae -- in effect, you are purifying the lakes by eating up the pollutants.


Humans add excessive amounts of plant nutrients (primarily phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon) to streams and lakes in various ways. Runoff from agricultural fields, field lots, urban lawns, and golf courses is one source of these nutrients. Untreated, or partially-treated, domestic sewage is another major source. Sewage was a particular source of phosphorus to lakes when detergents contained large amounts of phosphates. The phosphates acted as water softeners to improve the cleaning action, but they also proved to be powerful stimulants to algal growth when they were washed or flushed into lakes.

The excessive growth, or"blooms", of algae promoted by these phosphates changed water quality in Lake Erie and many other lakes. These algal blooms led to oxygen depletion and resultant fish kills. Many native fish species disappeared, to be replaced by species more resistant to the new conditions. Beaches and shorelines were fouled by masses of rotting, stinking algae. A means to control this problem became a paramount need.

So, by growing algae, you reverse this process. It's beautiful, I tell you.

Wired news had an article about using microbes to produce ethanol (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70208-0.html?tw=wn_index_5) as well. Instead of using corn, which is precious, microbes can break down straw into sugar, which can then be turned into ethanol fuel. So many things thatmicrobes can do, we just need to shift our production capabilities to these new methods.

Aye, but the very things that are bringing about advanced eutrophication in many lakes (eutrophication = advanced/harmful amounts of algae) are eaten up when you grow masses amounts of algae -- in effect, you are purifying the lakes by eating up the pollutants.


Well, I fail to see how eutrophication would be retarded by inducing it. But actually it's a big meh, for me anyway. I imagine there are engineering/other concerns that have stopped this project from going ahead.

He just wanted to know an easy objection to it. So I gave him one.

I can't believe that no-one has made a Soylent green joke yet.

Yes I have read about this before I have heard they would like to put Algae farms in the Deserts of the South West U.S and build a pipe line from the Pacific Ocean to the Desert to pump in sea water (becuase algae can grow in any water and fresh water is precious in the southwest)and use the sewage from Los Angelos and other cities to feed the Algae.

Yep, all you need is (sterilized) waste, water, and algae stock, a closed system, and sunlight. The ultimate solar power generator that runs off our trash, and produces oil. Who loses? You need alcohol to make the biodiesel, but you can make alcohol from the non-consumed algae waste from which the oil was extracted. As a by product, you get glycerine, but hell, we could use more soap, I guess (anybody got a warehouse?)

Yep, all you need is (sterilized) waste, water, and algae stock, a closed system, and sunlight. The ultimate solar power generator that runs off our trash, and produces oil. Who loses? You need alcohol to make the biodiesel, but you can make alcohol from the non-consumed algae waste from which the oil was extracted. As a by product, you get glycerine, but hell, we could use more soap, I guess (anybody got a warehouse?)

When I read about this years ago they said they had two problems
1) They needed a cost effective to pump Co2 into the pond to make the algae grow faster.

2)They needed to find an effective way to stop the invasion of other micro organisms from overtaking the Oil rich algae crop.

have they figured out these two things yet.

When I read about this years ago they said they had two problems
1) They needed a cost effective to pump Co2 into the pond to make the algae grow faster.

2)They needed to find an effective way to stop the invasion of other micro organisms from overtaking the Oil rich algae crop.

have they figured out these two things yet.

Certainly it has it's challanges, but you would agree, (as do a lot of other people) that it is looks like to reasonable solution should we have a serious oil crisis. This thread is afterall in response to the constant prophets of doom who are chanting peak oil and stone age in a fevered apoplectic frenzy.

I think the challanges are mild compare to some other alternative fuel solutions out there.

There are a number of difficulties with the use of algae. A major problem is that constant high temperatures facilitate high yields, but large scale energy production would involve large open ponds in deserts, where temperatures fall at night. Siting ponds close to power plants would enable use of warm cooling water. Using power station CO2 would not affect the impact of that carbon on the atmosphere, because it would end up in the atmosphere after the biodiesel was burnt. This factor alone would seem to disqualify large scale use of algae for the production of liquid fuels.

One difficulty is that the conditions which increase growth rates reduce oil content. Starving the algae of nutrients raises their oil content. Another is that the sunlight conversion rate and therefore efficiency of the process is highest in low light levels, e.g., 10% of full sun. However Mardon points out that water depth must be around 30 cm to ensure that enough light reaches the algae, so pond areas must be large. This rules out sealed ponds for large scale production, and thus increases seepage losses, contamination and weed problems. Mardon says algae grow best in the tropics, but heavy rains can wash out shallow pond contents. Ponds also require mixing and aeration, difficult where very large areas are involved.

A major consideration is where would inputs come from for very large scale production of this biomass? Some advocates refer to use of nutrient rich waste water from agriculture, but far greater quantities of nutrients would be needed to make a significant contribution to replacing fossil fuel dependence. Around 40% of the input material must be carbon dioxide. In addition inputs of NKP would be required in large volume. This sets the pro blem of transporting ver large volumes of these inputs to the best growing sites, and the associated energy costs. World petroleum production is around 2.7 billion tonnes per year, so if algae is expected to replace much of these very large quantities of these inputs would have to come from somewhere.

Perhaps the major problem in the production of biodiesel from any source is that it requires the input of methanol or ethanol equivalent to about one quarter of its output weight. Algae contain considerable carb on, but no hydrogen. This chapter concludes that there will be far too little biomass to enable replacement of liquid fuels by biomass, so large in puts into biodiesel production can’t be assumed.

Mardon (2004), who has worked on various biomass input sources, including algae, for the Australian CSIRO, says they found that the energy cost of the process is so high that the energy return is negative. "…the energy required to grow (and more particularly to harvest and process) the algae is considerably greater than what you can get out of it." Winter growth rates were found to be slow. "…filters are not an effective way of harvesting them, so a lot of energy is required for centrifugation. Even then, the cell mass is very wet, and some form of de-watering may be required…" "…our field work showed that it was not a practical as a way of harnessing solar energy." Mardon also notes that ponds are prone to contamination, and require aeration. It is interesting that NREL recently terminated its algae research program.

From a more comprehensive study on biodiesel in general with a whole section on biomass.

Whole report. (http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D90.RE.Ch.5.Liquids.html)

Certainly it has it's challanges, but you would agree, (as do a lot of other people) that it is looks like to reasonable solution should we have a serious oil crisis. This thread is afterall in response to the constant prophets of doom who are chanting peak oil and stone age in a fevered apoplectic frenzy.

I think the challanges are mild compare to some other alternative fuel solutions out there.

I totally agree algae looks promising. Earthrise farms in California has figured out how to grow algae effectively but I don't know if the way they do it would be cost effective for large scale algae oil production. Its one thing selling a bottle of spirulina for $20 a bottle than it is to make a gallon of algae oil for .50 cents.

From a more comprehensive study on biodiesel in general with a whole section on biomass.

Whole report. (http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D90.RE.Ch.5.Liquids.html)

This looks like the same kind of propaganda that Microsoft puts out about why Linux is a bad idea. Wonder who wrote it *coughs* Exxon?

I totally agree algae looks promising. Earthrise farms in California has figured out how to grow algae effectively but I don't know if the way they do it would be cost effective for large scale algae oil production. Its one thing selling a bottle of spirulina for $20 a bottle than it is to make a gallon of algae oil for .50 cents.
Piss. I'd be happy with $1/gal for algae oil. With Crude at $61.85/bbl that $1 algae oil would still be cheaper.

It seems clear that the energy produced per ha by algae is quite high, but the above figures seem to refer to gross output or growth only. We do not seem to have clear and confident estimates for the energy cost of producing biodiesel from the algae. This is prohibitive according to some.

Thus the very enthusiastic claims sometimes encountered seem unwarranted. Biomass from algae seems to be a worthwhile option, but the probable yields are not likely to greatly exceed those from land biomass sources.

From the same report above, it does state that even in the worst case, it will create the same yields as land-based exploits. This, however, can be done in the desert, and does not use up valuable crop land that is currently growing stuff for us to eat. So even if this were 100% accurate, and there were no way to increase the output of the algae to what was reported, it is still a better deal. But perhaps with some real effort put into algae, and creating a better seed crop through genetic/breeding, we can come close. My biggest concern is the reasonableness of using fertile farm land, and losing that space for food production. There is global starvation already as it is.

Piss. I'd be happy with $1/gal for algae oil. With Crude at $61.85/bbl that $1 algae oil would still be cheaper.

Yeah me to it is sure as hell of a lot cheaper when you add the cost of war in with the cost you pay at the pump.

This looks like the same kind of propaganda that Microsoft puts out about why Linux is a bad idea. Wonder who wrote it *coughs* Exxon?
*cough* The University Of Sydney Australia. *cough*

I know it hurts, but you might want to take the time to actually read studies that contradict the point of view you like to hold. The fact that it feels good to believe something doesn't make it right. If you're so confident in algea oil, read teh report and refute what's in it. I read the whole algae report.

Sign me up I want to be an algae farmer. I know where to buy some cheap land that is hot as hell that algae would love.

It should also be noted that as petroleum becomes scarce there will be several feedback effects making the biomass situation more difficult. For instance if there is less fuel available and at higher cost then irrigation, transport, fertilizers and pesticides will become more scarce and costly making biomass production more costly and difficult. Agriculture will therefore tend to become more labour and land intensive, and agricultural produce will become more costly. There will tend to be a shift from energy-intensive building materials such as kiln-fired brick, aluminium, steel and plastics to timber, again increasing pressure on biomass sources. Looming water shortages and the impact of the greenhouse problem will probably significantly reduce biomass production. As population rises by 50% there will be a large increase in demand for land for food production. Also conventional neo-liberal economic "development" is stripping people from subsistence ways and accelerating the rate at which people are moving to cities, where per capita energy and resource consumption is higher. However the proportion of meat in Western diets could be reduced considerably, freeing much land for the production of biomass.
More from the report.

The conclusion of the University of Australia's report on biomas fuel production:

These considerations indicate that although a large volume of liquid and gas fuel could be produced from biomass, there is no possibility that this source could replace more than a minute fraction of present liquid fuel use.

Various other analyses have come to this conclusion. Giampietro, Ulgiati and Pimentel, (1997) find that to produce only 10% of US energy via ethanol would require 37 times the commercial livestock feed production. They say that providing US food plus energy via biomass would require 15 times the existing cropland, 30 times the agricultural water consumption, and 20 times present pesticide use. For Japan the cropland multiple would be 148. (p. 591.) "...none of the biofuel technologies considered in our analysis appears even close to being feasible on a large scale due to shortages of both arable land and water..." (p. 593.) Their discussion does not take into account pollution control measures required to deal with ecological impacts, notably the large quantities of nutrient-rich waste water. For these and other reasons Giampietro, Ulgiati and Pimentel conclude "...biofuels are unlikely to alleviate to any significant extent the current dependence on fossil energy..." (1997, p. 588.) Ulgiati (2001) also concludes from a detailed analysis of ethanol from maize that this is "…not a viable alternative."

The magnitude of the current overshoot is driven home by the following re-statements of the situation.

1. If 8 billion people were to have the current Australian 128GJ/y oil plus gas consumption from methanol, the area of land that would have to yield 7 t/ha/y would be 22 billion ha. World crop land totals only 1.4 billion ha, world forest and pasture 4 billion and 3.5 billion ha, and total world land totals about 13 billion ha.

2. If we take the extremely optimistic project sketched by Hall et all, i.e., 890 million yielding 15 t/ha/y, then for a world of 9 billion this would yield energy per capita equivalent to a mere 5.6% of the present Australian oil plus gas consumption.
Finally the ecological implications of large scale, intensive, continuous biomass production are unknown. Some would argue that any nutrient removal will inevitably result in soil deterioration in the long run.

It is argued below that the liquid and gaseous fuel problem cannot be solved by hydrogen or nuclear energy. What then is the solution? If the problem is defined in terms of maintaining a consumer-capitalist society committed to affluent "living standards" and economic growth, then…there isn’t one

More from the report.

So we could do ok if we all become vegetarians and cut back a little?

*cough* The University Of Sydney Australia. *cough*

I know it hurts, but you might want to take the time to actually read studies that contradict the point of view you like to hold. The fact that it feels good to believe something doesn't make it right. If you're so confident in algea oil, read teh report and refute what's in it. I read the whole algae report.

I did read what it said. I am not saying that they are wrong, I am saying that they are saying that at present knowledge level, it is not feasable. I am also saying that I would rather be working towards a goal with a solution in mind (even if it is the wrong one... keep turning the problem around, and we'll find the right one) rather than throwing up your arms, giving up, collapsing in a pile of apathy and wait for the stone age to come knocking on our door.

Believe me, just because somebody tells me that I can not do it, doesn't mean that I am not going to try. If I am in a burning building, and the door is locked, I am damn sure going to try to break a window, or tear down a wall...

These guys at the University of Australia are quick to say that NO solution will work, not nuclear, not biomass, not hydrogen, nothing. That looks awful "purchased" to me. Universities usually are not that quick to make a statement that casts that wide of a shadow, unless there is a lot of "funding" going on. Happens all the time.


Oh, and by the way, I did refute your report, just a couple of posts before you noticed my "pet theory". They (in the report you provided) said that in their estimation, algae would produce no more oil than land-based ventures. Again, (restating) I would rather be using desert to make oil than prime grazing/crop growing land. Algae can be grown in the desert.

So we could do ok if we all become vegetarians and cut back a little?
No. Read the conclusion two posts up.

IIRC algae is highly bio-modifiable, much more so than other plant stock.

Who's to say we can't come up with a strain that increases both yeild per acre, oil content and m/ethanol production capacity that also lives & breeds best in a desert climate?

Of course, bio-tech is bad and should never be used to improve the lives of people or detract from our certain slide into healthy 3rd-world barbarisim. :rolleyes:

IIRC algae is highly bio-modifiable, much more so than other plant stock.

Who's to say we can't come up with a strain that increases both yeild per acre, oil content and m/ethanol production capacity that also lives & breeds best in a desert climate?

Of course, bio-tech is bad and should never be used to improve the lives of people or detract from our certain slide into healthy 3rd-world barbarisim. :rolleyes:

Speaking of bio-tech research into algae check this outhttp://news.com.com/Worlds+next+fuel+source+could+be+designer+organisms/2100-11390_3-5933827.html

IIRC algae is highly bio-modifiable, much more so than other plant stock.

Who's to say we can't come up with a strain that increases both yeild per acre, oil content and m/ethanol production capacity that also lives & breeds best in a desert climate?

Of course, bio-tech is bad and should never be used to improve the lives of people or detract from our certain slide into healthy 3rd-world barbarisim. :rolleyes:

I agree 100 percent. Algae is a clorophyl machine, much more so than other plants. It has a simple structure, being little more than slimy green goo. It doesnt make complex structures, like corn or potatoes, or soybean. Just slimy green goo, which seems much easier than making a potato. A little tinkering may be all we need to either mitigate our energy problem and/or completely cover the surface of the planet in slimy green algae :D Let's put the little rascals to work, and make a real solar energy machine.

Hey, it would be kind of fun skiing down algae covered slopes. Just don't wipe out :gundge:

I did read what it said. I am not saying that they are wrong, I am saying that they are saying that at present knowledge level, it is not feasable. I am also saying that I would rather be working towards a goal with a solution in mind (even if it is the wrong one... keep turning the problem around, and we'll find the right one) rather than throwing up your arms, giving up, collapsing in a pile of apathy and wait for the stone age to come knocking on our door.Who's sitting on their asses? I'm going back to school to get my Master's in petroleum geology. In fact I took the GRE for it yesteday. If we're gonna to have a population crash, which I think is likely, I want to come out on the winning end and petroleum geologists are going to be extremely well paid and sought after people post peak. If we're going to avoid a crash then I want to be a part of the solution. I've even been in discussions with my family about a family farm we own in No. Cal. In the worst case scenario I'll have to learn to farm and probably living in a farming community will afford you the best chance of survival. I don't recommend anyone sit in their asses and whine about it. I think everyone should look at the writing on the wall and prepare for it. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."

Believe me, just because somebody tells me that I can not do it, doesn't mean that I am not going to try. If I am in a burning building, and the door is locked, I am damn sure going to try to break a window, or tear down a wall...You can't fly. :) The point is that the problem is immenent. It is on us. We need to put our energy in solutions that we know will work now. Mass transit. Better fuel economy. Localizing fuel production. We need to consum less, not try to figure out a way that will allow us to keep consuming more because that's probably impossible and only delays the inevitable. We don't have the time or resources to build a whole ne energy infrastructure. Its too late for that. Like Matt Savinah says, "Deal with reality or reality will deal with you."

these guys at the University of Australia are quick to say that NO solution will work, not nuclear, not biomass, not hydrogen, nothing. That looks awful "purchased" to me. Universities usually are not that quick to make a statement that casts that wide of a shadow, unless there is a lot of "funding" going on. Happens all the time.
Actually if you look at the study you'll see they wer extremely thurough. They weren't quick to say no to anything. They, in fact, even said that biofuels are feasible at some level. They just, like me, see them as at best a local solution to solve local problems and not as the kind of industrial powerhouse fuel that oil and natural gas are. And who would pay them off? The oil companies would pay for a report that basically says that the use of petroleum is not sustainable and that if we want to avoid calamity theonly real answer lies, not in trying to replace fossil fuels so that we can go about our merry way consuming like there's no tomorrow, but in dramatically changing the way we live in painful ways so that we can live sustainably? oesn't sound like the company line to me.

Speaking of bio-tech research into algae check this outhttp://news.com.com/Worlds+next+fuel+source+could+be+designer+organisms/2100-11390_3-5933827.html
There I go, channeling C/Net again :p

IIRC algae is highly bio-modifiable, much more so than other plant stock.

Who's to say we can't come up with a strain that increases both yeild per acre, oil content and m/ethanol production capacity that also lives & breeds best in a desert climate?

Of course, bio-tech is bad and should never be used to improve the lives of people or detract from our certain slide into healthy 3rd-world barbarisim. :rolleyes:
The first law of thermo dynamics states that energy is never created or destroyed. This means that if you increase the yeild fo a crop you necessarily increase the nutrient input into growing the crop. Corn and wheat are a perfect example. We have genetically modified them to the point that the modern strains we grow cannot go without huge amounts of fertalizer inputs. This all takes energy and resources. If you're going to talk about increasing the yields, you have to discuss where the additional nutrient and energy inputs are going to come from. That's just physics.

And who would pay them off? The oil companies would pay for a report that basically says that the use of petroleum is not sustainable and that if we want to avoid calamity theonly real answer lies, not in trying to replace fossil fuels so that we can go about our merry way consuming like there's no tomorrow, but in dramatically changing the way we live in painful ways so that we can live sustainably? oesn't sound like the company line to me.

I am enjoying the brisk debate, and I certainly wish you well in your endeavors, and wish you luck with your GRE exam.

But, that being said, I think that petrolium companies are short sighted enough that they would be more than willing to halt/hinder the advancement of any technology that slowed their production. Greed is more powerful at influencing than good sense, everyone would agree. Now, the petrol companies are going to rant and rave about potential bio-fuels, but then they are going to say something stupid like corn. No chance in corn solving our problems. It would take too much good pasture that we can not afford to lose to convert to corn as a realistic solution.

To validate my point, ever heard Bush or Cheney mention Algae as a solution? They've mentioned all the other options...options that are a far bit more of a long shot than algae, options that won't actually make any difference in the short run. Perhaps it is because they are pro-U.S.-oil companies? I figure if Bush / big oil isn't mentioning it, it is probably because it might actually work.


It is something to think about...

The first law of thermo dynamics states that energy is never created or destroyed. This means that if you increase the yeild fo a crop you necessarily increase the nutrient input into growing the crop. Corn and wheat are a perfect example. We have genetically modified them to the point that the modern strains we grow cannot go without huge amounts of fertalizer inputs. This all takes energy and resources. If you're going to talk about increasing the yields, you have to discuss where the additional nutrient and energy inputs are going to come from. That's just physics.
Yes, thus Geneer an algae that thrives on solar gain and industrial/biological waste. Unlike Corn/wheat/potatoes we're not planning on eating it, so the origin of the "fertalizer" is almost immaterial.

How many billions of tonnes of waste do we have in landfills? How much solar gain is possible in uninhabited desert?

How about using all that space under the (proposed) solar chimney(s) to breed geneered algae?

I am enjoying the brisk debate, and I certainly wish you well in your endeavors, and wish you luck with your GRE exam.

But, that being said, I think that petrolium companies are short sighted enough that they would be more than willing to halt/hinder the advancement of any technology that slowed their production. Greed is more powerful at influencing than good sense, everyone would agree. Now, the petrol companies are going to rant and rave about potential bio-fuels, but then they are going to say something stupid like corn. No chance in corn solving our problems. It would take too much good pasture that we can not afford to lose to convert to corn as a realistic solution.

To validate my point, ever heard Bush or Cheney mention Algae as a solution? They've mentioned all the other options...options that are a far bit more of a long shot than algae, options that won't actually make any difference in the short run. Perhaps it is because they are pro-U.S.-oil companies? I figure if Bush / big oil isn't mentioning it, it is probably because it might actually work.


It is something to think about...
Actually, I agree with your point here to an extent, but I think your aspersions are miscast. The power behind the ethanol lobby comes, not from oil comapnies who have invested only what the law requires them to invest (The US government requires investment in certain schemes regardless of ther viability), but from corn farmers. They're the ones pushing the subsidies and projects through congress. Having said that, I am a firm believer that energy companies, as they are more rightly referred to, don't give a shit about anything other than making money. This is why the second they see a process that has a convincing EROEI and is economical enough to compete with oil they will be all over it. Just to try to put a lid on the "oil company" conspiracy theories I need to point out that the largest producer of solar power in the world is Royal Dutch Shell. The fact that none of these companies, all of whom are more than willing to invest in coal, tar sands, oil shale, even wind and solar will not touch biofuels speaks not to a vast conspiracy, but to the viability of biofuels as an industrial fuel source. If they though they could produce it at a large scale and make money from it they would.

Here's a another c/net article about algae:

Seems a hell of a lot more realistic than thermal depolymerization.

Start-up drills for oil in algae

By Martin LaMonica

Story last modified Fri May 20 04:26:31 PDT 2005

Where most people see pond scum, Isaac Berzin sees oil--and a hedge against global warming.

Berzin is the founder and chief technology officer of GreenFuel Technologies, a Cambridge, Mass.-based start-up that has a novel approach to energy and pollution control.

Using technology licensed from a NASA project, GreenFuel builds bioreactors--in the shape of 3-meter-high glass tubes fashioned as a triangle--to grow algae. The algae are fed with sunlight, water and carbon-carrying emissions from power plants. The algae are then harvested and turned into biodiesel fuel.


What's new:
Start-up GreenFuel has developed a system that uses algae to cut down on power plant emissions and produce biodiesel fuel.
Dual Use Technology!
Bottom line:
GreenFuel is one of several companies seeking to sell alternative fuels or "clean technology" to business customers. Experts say the demand is driven by the need to operate more efficiently and with less waste.

GreenFuel is one of many companies developing businesses based on alternative energies such as biodiesel and so-called clean technologies. These companies are targeting business customers that might benefit from innovative approaches to reducing pollution or lowering their fuel spending.

"Businesses look at productivity and how to eliminate cost--one way is to eliminate waste or to use what you have more efficiently," said Nicholas Parker, executive director of investment group Cleantech Venture Network. "In many ways, clean tech is the enabling tech of 21st-century industrial society."

GreenFuel is initially focusing on energy utilities, which generate greenhouse gases that are seen as contributors to global warming and climate change. But its bioreactor technology can be used in many types of industrial installations or refineries, Berzin said.

The potential benefits of the system are twofold: Heavy polluters can cut down on their emissions, and the system can be used for large-scale biodiesel production. Biodiesel, which is often created with vegetable oils from crops such as soybeans, can be used as an alternative to petroleum-based diesel fuel in cars or trucks.

The 10-person company is still in its early stages. It has secured $2.1 million in venture funding and in March hired energy industry veteran Cary Bullock as president and CEO.

GreenFuel's product is being tested at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Berzin studied biology and chemical engineering. An energy utility in the southwestern United States plans to roll out the system more broadly later this year.

"Until now, it was proving that the technology works. Now, basically, it's proving that the economics behind the technology work," Berzin said. "The idea behind all this is that it's not a charity. If it makes sense economically, it will happen."

"Little packets of oil"
Algae are some of the most robust organisms on earth, able to grow in a wide range of conditions. That adaptability makes GreenFuel's bioreactors usable in many different conditions.

Researchers for years have sought to perfect the algae-creation process on a large scale, but without commercial success. Berzin said his work on a NASA project gave him new insight.

"I read descriptions of all this research, and it was clear to me that the limiting factor was the engineering side of the system," he said. "Algae can take (carbon dioxide), eat it and produce algae--that's a known fact. But if your system fails, it's a problem with your system, not the algae."

Before launching the company in 2001, Berzin was doing postdoctoral work with Payload Systems, a space engineering company, which was under contract with NASA to come up with a system to study how microgravity affects the growth of organisms in space.

Solar power and other alternative-energy concepts are looking good again.
Combining experts from various disciplines, the group at Payload Systems created a cell culture unit, a device about twice the size of a laptop computer, that allows scientists to change parameters that affect growth.

GreenFuel uses that cell culture unit to find the optimal algae for a particular environment. By taking samples of water and the emissions from power plants, it can rapidly fine-tune the process of finding the right algae.

"The strength of the team that worked on this NASA project was keeping these biological systems happy," Berzin said.

The company is also developing mathematical models on how to best control other inputs into the bioreactor, notably changes in light, to optimize algae growth.

Power plant emissions are piped into the triangular bioreactors along with water. The algae, which are exposed to the sun, consume carbon dioxide as part of photosynthesis. They also can break down nitrogen oxide--thereby reducing the amount of polluting gas released.

Once the algae are grown, the conversion to biodiesel is a relatively simple process, said Berzin, who calls algae "little packets of oil." Biodiesel produced from the natural oils in soybeans can be used in existing diesel engines.

Interest in the plant product as a potential replacement to petroleum-based diesel appears to be rising. In a radio address over the weekend, ahead of a trip to the Virginia Biodiesel Refinery, President Bush identified biodiesel as "an alternative fuel that will help our country achieve greater energy independence."

Curbing carbon consumption
GreenFuel's technology looks promising, but it does have some limitations.

Because it relies on solar energy to grow the algae, its products will work best in areas where there is a lot of sun. Berzin says that location has not been a problem yet.

Also, creating a large-scale operation with thousands of bioreactors requires a great deal of land. GreenFuel estimates that 70 percent of power plants in the United States have enough land and "food"--that is, carbon byproduct.

Still, CEO Bullock is convinced there is a clear demand for energy-related technologies that reduce the environmental impact of operating a business. "It struck me as a technology that might just make a big difference," he said.

Some of the impetus to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming is mandated by the Kyoto Treaty, which the United States has not signed. The treaty, expected to go into effect in Asia and Europe, calls for reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released and for implementing a system for purchasing carbon emission credits.

"Certainly when I talk to utility executives, they're thinking about carbon, even though they don't have $10 or $20 emissions permits," Bullock said. "At a business level, it's a contingent liability."

Outside of business circles, Bullock notes that people in general are increasingly showing concern over the environment, particularly outside the United States. The prospect of being perceived as a "green"--and community-minded--company may also help drive sales of GreenFuel's products to energy utilities.

GreenFuel's pilot customer is considering a plan to sell or donate the biodiesel it generates from the bioreactors as fuel for local school buses.

"They can be seen as heroes by taking something dirty and making something wonderful and sharing it with the community," Berzin said. "But the bottom line is that it makes sense economically."

Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://news.com.com/2102-1008_3-5714269.html?tag=st.util.print

The first law of thermo dynamics states that energy is never created or destroyed. This means that if you increase the yeild fo a crop you necessarily increase the nutrient input into growing the crop. Corn and wheat are a perfect example. We have genetically modified them to the point that the modern strains we grow cannot go without huge amounts of fertalizer inputs. This all takes energy and resources. If you're going to talk about increasing the yields, you have to discuss where the additional nutrient and energy inputs are going to come from. That's just physics.

True, but in most complex plants, only the leaf and skin of the stalk has chlorophyll, and can make energy. In algae, each and every cell works to turn the sun's rays into stored food/more algae. That is why algae is such a better choice, because 100% of the cells in an algae colony are working to make more algae. It makes sense, if you think about it. No overhead, maximum sunlight/energy ratio, and a huge surface area facing the sun.

Yes, thus Geneer an algae that thrives on solar gain and industrial/biological waste. Unlike Corn/wheat/potatoes we're not planning on eating it, so the origin of the "fertalizer" is almost immaterial.

How many billions of tonnes of waste do we have in landfills? How much solar gain is possible in uninhabited desert?

How about using all that space under the (proposed) solar chimney(s) to breed geneered algae?
Now we're building solar chimneys, mining landfills, etc... The scale of this project just gets more and more enourmous. Where is the energy and resources to do all this?

How about dealing with reality and going on a massive conservation program world wide? How about using the oil we have left to build railroads and other mass transit? How about a program teh size of the Manhatten Project or the Apollo Program to improve the efficiency of our transportation networks? These are solutions that rely on existing technology that we know will work right now. They may not be fun and we may have to give up our easy motoring ways in the western world, but we'll survive and the outcomes as far as community involvement and regular human dependencies may actually be good for our spirit. As Kunstler (http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary16.html) says at the end of 'The Long Emergency": In the end, we will sing. And when we sing, we will sing with our whole hearts.

Now we're building solar chimneys, mining landfills, etc... The scale of this project just gets more and more enourmous. Where is the energy and resources to do all this?

How about dealing with reality and going on a massive conservation program world wide? How about using the oil we have left to build railroads and other mass transit? How about a program teh size of the Manhatten Project or the Apollo Program to improve the efficiency of our transportation networks? These are solutions that rely on existing technology that we know will work right now. They may not be fun and we may have to give up our easy motoring ways in the western world, but we'll survive and the outcomes as far as community involvement and regular human dependencies may actually be good for our spirit. As Kunstler (http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary16.html) says at the end of 'The Long Emergency": In the end, we will sing. And when we sing, we will sing with our whole hearts.

Because regardless of the rate to which we prune our oil consumption back to, there is still a finite amount of oil that will come to an end long before the finite amount of light that comes out of the sun wears out. Let's be responsible and make a change now. And if, in the process, we can eat the trash out of landfills, and use the carbon from the smokestacks of powerplants, then it is even better.

What we're doing is not buying into an apocolyptic vision that essentially lies down to die while a Socialist System of deindustrialization (sorry, "massive, world-wide conservation") creeps us back into the stone age.

No one technology or ideology will solve the increasing planetary energy needs, but if we don't persue them (because they won't help - we're dooomed!) then we will devolve.

Of course, nothing would make the likes of Chomsky and Kunstler happier than to have their crackpot end of the world theories become self-fulfilling. :rolleyes:

Another Article. Great source. Sounding better and better (even to me) all the time.

For his part, Berzin calculates that just one 1,000 megawatt power plant using his system could produce more than 40 million gallons of biodiesel and 50 million gallons of ethanol a year. That would require a 2,000-acre "farm" of algae-filled tubes near the power plant. There are nearly 1,000 power plants nationwide with enough space nearby for a few hundred to a few thousand acres to grow algae and make a good profit, he says.

Energy security advocates like the idea because algae can reduce US dependence on foreign oil. "There's a lot of interest in algae right now," says John Sheehan, who helped lead the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) research project into using algae on smokestack emissions until budget cuts ended the program in 1996.

In 1990, Sheehan's NREL program calculated that just 15,000 square miles of desert (the Sonoran desert in California and Arizona is more than eight times that size) could grow enough algae to replace nearly all of the nation's current diesel requirements.

"I've had quite a few phone calls recently about it," says Mr. Sheehan. "This is not an outlandish idea at all."

According to this, if every powerplant were forced to do this, we could produce 90 billion gallons of biofuel per year, and reduce power plant emmissions at the same time, effectively reburning our coal, and not putting any more carbon back into the atmosphere.

What we're doing is not buying into an apocolyptic vision that essentially lies down to die while a Socialist System of deindustrialization (sorry, "massive, world-wide conservation") creeps us back into the stone age.

No one technology or ideology will solve the increasing planetary energy needs, but if we don't persue them (because they won't help - we're dooomed!) then we will devolve.

Of course, nothing would make the likes of Chomsky and Kunstler happier than to have their crackpot end of the world theories become self-fulfilling. :rolleyes:


Very well put.

What we're doing is not buying into an apocolyptic vision that essentially lies down to die while a Socialist System of deindustrialization (sorry, "massive, world-wide conservation") creeps us back into the stone age.

No one technology or ideology will solve the increasing planetary energy needs, but if we don't persue them (because they won't help - we're dooomed!) then we will devolve.

Of course, nothing would make the likes of Chomsky and Kunstler happier than to have their crackpot end of the world theories become self-fulfilling. :rolleyes:
Godamn commie pinko faggots is comin' in 'Merica tryin' a tell us wats, wut. :mad: I tell you wut! Imma git me ma gun and shoots dem commies! :mad:


You don't tend to read people's responses much, do you? I am all about free markets. I think the government's only place in this is building infrastructure, like rail, and in ecouraging private enterprise to provide us with the solutions we need and forging diplomatic relationships with other countries who all have a vested interet in solving the immense problems we face. The LAST thing we need is the government getting involved in this because they tend to do stupid things like spend money on ethanol and other biofuels. Leave the market to handle it and we will have the best possible solution provided the government doesn't do something stupid like try to use the military to control Middle Eastern oil. For myself, I plan on making a living from this crisis, not roll over and die. But I realize that what is essential for the best possible outcome to the converging problems of the 21st century is for people to be knowledgable and realistic about the challenges we face. A stupid populace that has unrealistic expectations can only make matters worse because they'll end up doing thinsg like voting in war mongers who promise to find more oil. No, an informed populace, a government that promotes private sector solutions and builds infrastructure and a free market are the best combinations to combat our energy and other resource problems, its just that the best possible solution probably does not include a cntinuance of the lifestyles we enjoyed for the last 100 years.

That makes sense...






Did you know that if you put a fairly strong magnet (able to lift around 30 lbs of iron, I don't know what type of label you can give that though) next to cyanobacteria (often called algae, but isn't really), the cells of the cyanobacteria rupture?

Edit: It must stay near the cyanobacteria for a couple weeks for the effects to take place.

Good, unbiased link/review of Kunstler's polemic against humanity (where we all get to sing about devolving into agro-comunes) :rolleyes:

http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_14863,296,p1.html

The LAST thing we need is the government getting involved in this because they tend to do stupid things like spend money on ethanol and other biofuels.And exactly HOW woud the Government NOT be getting inveoved in a "massive conservation program world wide"? You can't have it both ways. Leave the market to handle it and we will have the best possible solution provided the government doesn't do something stupid like try to use the military to control Middle Eastern oil. Not possible if you force them to stop development in your "massive conservation program world wide".

In case you didn't notice, the key words are "Massive" and "Program". Add the phrase "World wide" and the only thing left to the imagination is WHO gets to be Energy Dictator.

Not much room for Free Markets there.

It's amazing to me how you can take someone like Kunstler seriously when he, in one breath says biofuels won't work, then in the next says we will heat our homes with wood chips.

And exactly HOW woud the Government NOT be getting inveoved in a "massive conservation program world wide"? You can't have it both ways. Not possible if you force them to stop development in your "massive conservation program world wide".

In case you didn't notice, the key words are "Massive" and "Program". Add the phrase "World wide" and the only thing left to the imagination is WHO gets to be Energy Dictator.

Not much room for Free Markets there.

It's amazing to me how you can take someone like Kunstler seriously when he, in one breath says biofuels won't work, then in the next says we will heat our homes with wood chips.
I actually don't take him all that seriosuly except to the extent that he identifies problems. As far as a massive conservation program, where do you get the the governement has to be involved on any level other than building infrastructure, developing cooperative diplomatic ties and encouraging investment? :confused: I don't see them sending the cops out to force you to turn off yoru heater at gun point. :confused:

I do take this guy seriosuly: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/
He is the founder and president of the world's largest energy investment bank. Read his articles and refute him.

It is important for people like Kunstler to say the things that they say, even if it motivates otherwise moderate people who lean toward apathy to do something about the "inevitable". The fact is, if you are standing on a train track, and there is an oncoming train, and you don't move, then it is pretty much inevitable that your day will be seriously ruined. The same thing goes for us. It is given and well understood statement that oil does not repenish itself, and that it is a finite quantity - even if you take it out one teaspoon full at a time, eventually there will come a day where there is no more oil. And so this is the track upon which we stand. We must be the one to get off the track. Running down the track, trying to stay ahead of the train, well, that is just stupid. You may gain a little ground, but you won't gain much time. Same thing goes with conservation. Nobody is really going to conserve, nobody is going to forgo their trip to grandma's house, nobody is going to pass up on their trip to the Bahamas. And the world will continue to hemmorage oil.

It is important for people like Kunstler to say the things that they say, even if it motivates otherwise moderate people who lean toward apathy to do something about the "inevitable". The fact is, if you are standing on a train track, and there is an oncoming train, and you don't move, then it is pretty much inevitable that your day will be seriously ruined. The same thing goes for us. It is given and well understood statement that oil does not repenish itself, and that it is a finite quantity - even if you take it out one teaspoon full at a time, eventually there will come a day where there is no more oil. And so this is the track upon which we stand. We must be the one to get off the track. Running down the track, trying to stay ahead of the train, well, that is just stupid. You may gain a little ground, but you won't gain much time. Same thing goes with conservation. Nobody is really going to conserve, nobody is going to forgo their trip to grandma's house, nobody is going to pass up on their trip to the Bahamas. And the world will continue to hemmorage oil.
I agree with everything you said until the last few sentences. People will conserve wether they like it or not.

I think people will not conserve, and the moment they are asked to seriously conserve because there is a shortage, every knucklehead in the world will run out and buy a 500 gallon (or more) tank and fill it up. Chaos ensues.

I think people will not conserve, and the moment they are asked to seriously conserve because there is a shortage, every knucklehead in the world will run out and buy a 500 gallon (or more) tank and fill it up. Chaos ensues.
That's possible. That actually happened in the 1973 and 1980 oil crisis. Once people realized oil was going to be in short supply there was a "run on the bank" where people filled up as much as possible as often as possible which, of course, exacerbated the problems.

The reality is that no one knows what will happen. There is a whole range of possibilities from peak oil going under us like a wave under a boat on the ocean to nuclear war with China and Russia that results in the extinction of the human race. I think the actual result will be somewhere in the middle. I think the days of our high energy lifestyles are numbered but, contrary to how I may come across at times, I think in the end after a lot of whaling and gnashing of teeth we will be okay. It will be a different world, but I'm not sure that the world we create over the next several decades needs necessarily to be a bad one. I have hope that we will maintian the best of the knowledge and technology the Age Of Oil allowed us to gain, if not the easy motoring, hop in your car at any moment and drive lifestyles. Time will tell, but of this I am pretty damn sure - we will not escape the next few decades without a serious bruising as a result of the demise of easy, cheap energy. This is an event that warrents far more discussion and attention than it gets and the clock is ticking.

That's possible. That actually happened in the 1973 and 1980 oil crisis. Once people realized oil was going to be in short supply there was a "run on the bank" where people filled up as much as possible as often as possible which, of course, exacerbated the problems.

The reality is that no one knows what will happen. There is a whole range of possibilities from peak oil going under us like a wave under a boat on the ocean to nuclear war with China and Russia that results in the extinction of the human race. I think the actual result will be somewhere in the middle. I think the days of our high energy lifestyles are numbered but, contrary to how I may come across at times, I think in the end after a lot of whaling and gnashing of teeth we will be okay. It will be a different world, but I'm not sure that the world we create over the next several decades needs necessarily to be a bad one. I have hope that we will maintian the best of the knowledge and technology the Age Of Oil allowed us to gain, if not the easy motoring, hop in your car at any moment and drive lifestyles. Time will tell, but of this I am pretty damn sure - we will not escape the next few decades without a serious bruising as a result of the demise of easy, cheap energy. This is an event that warrents far more discussion and attention than it gets and the clock is ticking.


Well put, and I agree wholeheartedly. I do, however, think that we can have a world with a minimal requirement on oil. Hell, we can fly an airplane, we can put a person into space, we can clone (insert animal), we can build the internet and give it to a ton of people (a feat, that if considered before the internet was built, would not have been considered even within the realm of possibilities), so we sure as hell can make some form of renewable energy from sunlight. Damn, there is a ton of it, and it ain't runnin' out any time soon (we hope).

The way I see it, as soon as there is a serious demand for alternative energy supplies, the pet projects that never got funding will suddenly get tons of money, because everybody will want to be the next energy baron, and as far as I see it, that title will soon, and very soon be up for grabs. Greed will get us renewable energy, but we just have to wait until there is something there to be greedy about. Gasoline at $3/gallon, well, that is getting pretty close.

Just wait a minute. It'll happen.

Wow. This thread went from mindless optimism to doom and gloom but now it's coming up to a fairly realistic stance. If only all NS threads could go like this...

Well put, and I agree wholeheartedly. I do, however, think that we can have a world with a minimal requirement on oil. Hell, we can fly an airplane, we can put a person into space, we can clone (insert animal), we can build the internet and give it to a ton of people (a feat, that if considered before the internet was built, would not have been considered even within the realm of possibilities), so we sure as hell can make some form of renewable energy from sunlight. Damn, there is a ton of it, and it ain't runnin' out any time soon (we hope).

The way I see it, as soon as there is a serious demand for alternative energy supplies, the pet projects that never got funding will suddenly get tons of money, because everybody will want to be the next energy baron, and as far as I see it, that title will soon, and very soon be up for grabs. Greed will get us renewable energy, but we just have to wait until there is something there to be greedy about. Gasoline at $3/gallon, well, that is getting pretty close.

Just wait a minute. It'll happen.

As someone who was involved in housing development in the late 1970s during the first "Oil Crisis" I can certainly vouch for this.

The Architectural Firm I was associated with at the time designed a housing development for HUD that, when completed, had a total heat energy use less than that of one of today's McMansions.

Passive Solar works. (I've got a picture of a house with the internal temp thermometer reading 80, with no heat on, when it was -20 outside.

For about 10 years 90% of our projects were Passive Solar. Of course, when oil got cheap again, nobody wanted solar any more.

It will come back. And other technologies will be developed (like actually capturing & using the Methane (Natural Gas) from landfills, sewage processing plants, etc. instead of just flaring it off) and new sorces of motive propulsion will come to the fore - especially if we can get orbital factories churning out semi-frictionless perfectly spherical bearings.

Sure, if it is readily available in the ground, nothing is easier than just scooping it up, cleaning it up a bit, and pouring it in the tank. But when crude becomes more and more difficult to find, the laws of supply and demand will force us to resort to things that take a few more steps/cost a bit more. The thing is, once the infrastructure is built for something like algae/biofuels, we may find that it works as well/easy as anything else, and is much much greener, and stick with it.

Sometimes the easiest thing is not always the best thing, and this is certainly the case in this situation.